The record marked a change from the upbeat pop rock and hard rock of the group's previous albums, representing a more aggressive and experimental sound.[2]Billboard said that while Panorama retained the Cars' minimalist approach from their debut album, it sounded sufficiently different to avoid having the group sound like a caricature of itself.[3]
Rolling Stone critic Ken Tucker said that "Panorama isn't merely a joyless joyride, it's an out-and-out drag."[10]Robert Christgau claimed that the album's problem is "boredom with formula" and said that "This is longer, slower and denser [than previous Cars' albums], with lyrics that skirt social commentary and music that essays textural pretension.[5]Spin Alternative Record Guide deemed the album "a dry, monotonous Wire imitation."[9] Critic Keith Roysdon said that "The entire album is a plea from a man's point of view for love and/or sex from a woman. The fact that 'he', the narrator, is getting neither accounts for the depressing tone of the LP."[11] Roysdon also found the album repetitious, saying that "Songwriter Ric Ocasek has written some fairly good numbers, but they sound alike, with just a few exceptions."[11]Daily Herald-Tribune critic Ethlie Ann Vare said that it lacked the "hard rocking edge" from the Cars' first two albums and that it "slops over into muddy techno-pop."[12]Quad-City Times critic Greg Kot said that the album "overdoses on Ric Ocasek's too chic, too nebulous lyrics and Roy Thomas Baker's intrusive production" and that "Ocasek and the band build tension but the climaxes never arrive" resulting in an album that "fails as rock 'n' roll."[13]Pittsburgh Press critic Pete Bishop felt it had "an undue amount of menace and too little melody and snap in the music."[14]Saginaw News critic Nancy Kuharevicz called it a "stark, almost anti-musical album" and said that "When Ocasek isn't moaning like a whiny, jilted adolescent, he's repetitiously droning pat phrases which range from trite to abtruse."[15] Critic Stuart Margulies called it "shockingly boring, unmelodic and senseless."[16]
Boston Globe critic Steve Morse called it "a tour de force of high-tech strategy" that "ushers in a potpourri of new sound textures."[17]The State Journal critic Archer Prewitt said that "every song is good" and that "No one song is similar to another and each has an irrestible characteristic that leave you humming."[18]Los Angeles Times critic Steve Pond criticized the album's lack of hooks compared to previous Cars' albums but felt that the new approach also yielded some benefits, concluding that "lapses notwithstanding, it's still one of the best rides in town."[19]
^Joiner, Mike (1998). "The Cars". In Graff, Gary; Durchholz, Daniel (eds.). MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album Guide. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. p. 203.
[4]
